Book of Mormon Evidence: Deuteronomic Reforms and Lehi’s Family

Evidence Summary 

The Deuteronomic Reforms

The Book of Mormon begins in “the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah,” which scholars date to around 597 BC. By that time, Lehi, who lived in Jerusalem his entire life, had already raised four sons (1 Nephi 1:4). He and his family would therefore have witnessed the tumultuous events of the late seventh century BC. According to scholars, this was “a time of momentous turmoil. Civil wars, international conflict, rising and falling fortunes, and shifting cultural pressures and loyalties … raised anxieties and uncertainties throughout the region.”1

In addition to political and social unrest, there was religious upheaval as well. Much of this can be traced back to the changes enacted by King Josiah in the mid-seventh century. According to the book of 2 Kings, Josiah ordered the temple to be cleansed when a priest found “the book of the law” (2 Kings 22:8). After reading from this book, Josiah initiated sweeping reforms. According to Mordechai Cogan,

Josiah ordered a thoroughgoing purge of all non-Israelite forms of worship—the residue of centuries-long accommodation and influence. Everything associated with these rituals was removed and burned, and the priests who attended them banned. And, like Hezekiah in his day, Josiah outlawed worship at the local shrines and high places, redirecting all ritual to the newly cleansed Temple.2

Because many scholars believe this “book of the law” was a form of the book of Deuteronomy, these changes are often called the Deuteronomic reforms. Due to the influence they had throughout the exilic and post-exilic periods, these reforms are often regarded by scholars as “the turning point in the history of Jerusalem and its religion.”3

The Reforms and Lehi’s Family

We don’t know everything these reforms entailed or precisely how they may have taken shape in the years following Josiah’s death. Nevertheless, they would have undoubtedly influenced those living in Jerusalem around Lehi’s day. In fact, as suggested by Neal Rappleye, the specific behaviors, worldviews, and conflicts within Lehi’s family make additional sense when viewed in this religious context.4

Rather than completely rejecting or accepting Josiah’s reforms, Rappleye proposes that Lehi and Nephi may have had mixed views about them, accepting some aspects while rejecting others.5 In contrast, he posits that Laman and Lemuel were fully invested in the Deuteronomic religious agenda. Over and over again, the conflicts within Lehi’s family seem informed by their differing responses to these reforms. Several lines of evidence supporting this thesis are outlined in the sections below.

Fleeing Religious Persecution

Perhaps the first thing to consider is that Lehi’s revelatory message was thoroughly rejected by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to the point where they threatened his life and he had to flee (1 Nephi 2:1). Lehi’s family, however, wasn’t the only group to separate themselves from their ancestral homeland due to religious persecution. Margret Barker has pointed out that “Remnants of the older faith survived in many places, preserved by the descendants of those who fled from Josiah’s purge.”6 The notion of an unorthodox religious group escaping the region at this time is therefore quite believable. 

Sacrifices and Murmuring

It may be notable that the first time Laman and Lemuel “did murmur against their father” (1 Nephi 2:11–12) comes immediately after Lehi “built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord” (1 Nephi 2:7). Based on their interpretation of Deuteronomy 12, most of the Deuteronomists “understood and enforced that Jerusalem was the only place where sacrifice could be offered.”7 As such, “the timing would suggest the possibility that it was Lehi’s perceived violation of Deuteronomic law which evoked, or at least contributed to, the complaints from his oldest sons.”8

Rejecting Dreams and Visions

On several occasions, Laman and Lemuel exhibited strong skepticism and derision towards Lehi’s and Nephi’s visionary experiences. In one instance, they called their father a “visionary man” who led his family into the wilderness “because of the foolish imaginations of his heart” (1 Nephi 2:11). One gets the impression that it isn’t so much that they doubted their father’s specific visions, but that they categorically rejected visionary experiences altogether—a position in line with Deuteronomic sentiments.9

In particular, their views may have been informed by Deuteronomy 13:1–9, which states that if a “dreamer of dreams” tries to mislead the people, he should be put to death, even if he is a family member.10 Modern audiences often wonder how Laman and Lemuel could have contemplated violence against their own father and brother. The Deuteronomic worldview helps explain their murderous intentions.

The Law and Righteousness

Laman and Lemuel did not “believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets” (1 Nephi 2:13). As David Rolph Seely and Fred E. Woods explain, “The recent reforms of Josiah (640–609 BC) … had given certain people of Judah an undue sense of self and community righteousness that they believed would surely preserve them from any threatened destruction.”11

Additionally, Laman and Lemuel stated that the people of Jerusalem “kept the statutes and judgments of the Lord, and all his commandments, according to the law of Moses; wherefore, we know that they are a righteous people” (1 Nephi 17:22). This is very much in-line with the law-oriented ideology of the Deuteronomists. In contrast, Nephi and Lehi characterized the Law as a type of Christ and not the end goal itself.12 This becomes a major theme developed throughout the text.13

Nephi and Joseph

On several levels, it seems Nephi intentionally drew out parallels between himself and Joseph who was sold into Egypt by his wicked older brothers.14 This is noteworthy since Joseph was a prominent biblical figure who—like Lehi and Nephi—was a visionary or dreamer. As explained by Rappleye, “in the height of his opposition with his brothers, Nephi portrays himself as a second Joseph, one of the heroes of the old wisdom tradition. Laman’s and Lemuel’s affiliation with the Deuteronomists and their opposition to that tradition heightens the symbolism of Nephi’s allusions and imbues them with further meaning.”15

Moses and the Brazen Serpent

Even more prominently, Nephi repeatedly connected himself and his father with Moses.16 On one level, such parallels would have been rhetorically persuasive because Moses was the primary biblical hero and lawgiver revered by the Deuteronomists.17 Yet, at times, the specific stories that Nephi emphasized seem intended to rebuff the Deuteronomic religious ideology. Nephi’s discussion of the brazen serpent as a positive religious symbol is particularly notable.18

Even before Josiah’s reforms, King Hezekiah removed the brazen serpent from the Israelite temple in an effort to thwart idolatry (2 Kings 18:4). According to Leslie S. Wilson, “during or just after the period of King Josiah and the Deuteronomist[s],” the “serpentine (nḥš) traditions became the symbol of all things evil and abhorrent to [Jehovah].”19 Thus, Laman and Lemuel would likely have viewed this religious icon in a negative light. It is somewhat telling, then, that Nephi implicitly compared his brothers to the Israelites who perished because they reviled Moses and would not “look” upon the serpent (1 Nephi 17:41; cf. 2 Nephi 25:20).

Conclusion

On the surface, Laman and Lemuel may seem like simplistic stock characters—rebellious young men who would do anything to spite a controlling parent or self-righteous sibling. Grant Hardy described them as mere “caricatures” whose “sole mode of communication is complaining.”20

Rappleye’s analysis, however, suggests that there is much more to their complaining than meets the eye. They aren’t just villainous foils meant to accentuate Nephi’s righteousness. Nor are they there simply to provide a contrast between good and evil. Instead, their actions and behavior seem to consistently reflect a genuine worldview that was contemporary to their own time and place. It therefore appears that Nephi was reporting a genuine clash of ancient religious ideologies.

In 1829 Joseph Smith would likely have had little understanding of the Deuteronomic reforms. The significance of this religious movement hadn’t yet been uncovered by biblical scholarship, and it is hard to imagine Smith gleaning all of these details from the Bible and then so subtly infusing them into his narrative. Overall, the explanatory power of this socio-religious context considerably strengthens the Book of Mormon’s status as a genuine ancient document.